Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd Jan 2009 12:58 UTC
Windows Even though the EULA accompanying the beta build of Windows 7 prohibits the publication of benchmark results (good luck enforcing that one, Redmond), everybody and their dog will still compare the Windows 7 beta to Vista and Windows XP. Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is one of those benchmarking the beta, and according to his results, the Windows 7 beta beats both Vista and XP in just about every scenario.
Thread beginning with comment 342207
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Figures?
by mallard on Sat 3rd Jan 2009 14:26 UTC
mallard
Member since:
2006-01-06

Would be nice if he posted the actual figures for his tests, so we could see how much the speed difference is.

Also test 1, installing the OS, is mostly irrelevant since it is something that is done a couple of times in the computer's lifetime, if that (most Windows installations are done by the manufacturer). As long as it doesn't take a ridiculous amount of time, who cares?

Reply Score: 6

RE: Figures?
by google_ninja on Sat 3rd Jan 2009 15:38 in reply to "Figures?"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Ive been using it full time for about a month now, and it is noticeably faster then vista, but not much more then that. Where it really shines is boot time. It is faster, and doesn't do that thing where vista thrashes the disc for 5 minutes after boot up.

You can take what I say with a grain of salt though, cause on my hardware I can't really tell a difference in performance between xp and vista.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Figures?
by Googol on Sun 4th Jan 2009 11:41 in reply to "RE: Figures?"
Googol Member since:
2006-11-24

thrashing discs for 5 minutes ?! lol - go buy a new disc.

Huh, that was difficult !

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Figures?
by Kasi on Sun 4th Jan 2009 05:35 in reply to "Figures?"
Kasi Member since:
2008-07-12

Sir that is reprehensibly untrue.

In the land of open source, all we do is continually reinstall operating systems. Its common knowledge that unless its a server (as those things have been running continuously since there were dinosaurs roaming silicon valley) the OS has an average lifespan equal to that of teenage girl on a first date.

All you have to do is look at any review of any new open source OS release. The first 9 of 10 pages are how nice the installer is and all the features you can choose between. The last page is usually a summary of what its like to boot the system for the first time.

After that is time to reinstall a new operating system. They don't come out and say this as everyone already knows that's what your supposed to do.

We don't actually use these systems for real work, thats a big no no. BeOS was the last OS made that was intended to be used for real work and look what happened to it. So we're just not going to repeat that mistake again.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Figures?
by evangs on Sun 4th Jan 2009 09:36 in reply to "RE: Figures?"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

the OS has an average lifespan equal to that of teenage girl on a first date.


What on earth do you do to girls on their first date? Whatever it is, I'm putting it down to user error.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: Figures?
by flanque on Sun 4th Jan 2009 19:49 in reply to "Figures?"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Incorrect, depending on who you are. In support roles, particularly for larger or higher turnover organisations (e.g. salesforce), the installation time matters greatly.

Reply Parent Score: 2